Colleagues have already highlighted this afternoon that, after much walking through the darkness, the UK Government has actually, finally, come to a point where it’s now getting on with the outcomes of the referendum on 23 June. However, that referendum, as we all know, only said one thing: that we had to leave the EU institutions. It did not determine the terms on which we leave and it did not discuss the new relationships with the other 27 member states. This is why it is important now to get our objectives on the agenda, as the process about that begins.

I’m disappointed that, prior to this point and the invocation of article 50, the Westminster Government’s handling of this matter has not shown sufficient respect to the institutions of the devolved nations in moving forward, even though the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government both submitted their own proposals for consideration. It’s now critical that the UK Government delivers on its stated commitment to fully involve the devolved nations. This needs to go beyond merely meeting with Ministers through the JMC, or the JMC(EN), but actually taking on board what each Government has put forward and involving Ministers from devolved nations in the negotiating process, where appropriate, and creating a new constitutional mechanism for our nations.

This was highlighted in the report by the Exiting the European Union Committee, published only today, in, for those who want to read it, paragraph 10 and paragraph 13—have a good look at it—but also a report from the Lords Constitution Committee published in March, which states, and I quote:

‘This will mean that the UK Government and the devolved administrations will need to manage new interfaces—and potentially overlapping responsibilities—between reserved matters and devolved competence in areas where the writ of EU law no longer runs. The UK Government and devolved administrations will need to agree, before Brexit, how those new interfaces will be managed.’

In other words, everyone is saying, except the UK Government, ‘We need a constitutional structure that is based upon statute, not simply upon a good handshake.’ Llywydd, there are some in the UK Government who actually accept devolution. Some even get it, but too many don’t and have a belief that everything must be driven by Westminster and Whitehall. We must do all we can to actually collaborate strongly with our colleagues in other devolved nations to ensure the UK Government delivers on its words and sentiment in both the article 50 letter and the great repeal Bill White Paper. They say it; let’s make sure they deliver on it.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the Welsh Government’s White Paper also placed the economy at the top of the agenda, and understandably so, because we need prosperity across this nation and the ability of Welsh businesses to trade without barriers—whether financial or regulatory—is critical to allow it to grow. And manufacturing plays a great part in the Welsh economy, more than any other nation in the UK—it’s actually 16 per cent of GVA. And so, we must ensure that a difficult divorce, with the WTO Brexit rules, does not happen, because it would mean crippling tariffs placed upon our exports.

I noticed UKIP’s amendment 6 highlights that they want to say, ‘It’s £8 billion; we can use the money.’ I just think that’s an excuse to actually justify why they can’t deliver on their promises of £350 million a week going to our public services. They want to hide the fact they can’t do it, and therefore they’re now saying, ‘Oh, let’s get from the EU another £8 billion or so.’ So, that’s something we need to address very clearly. The White Paper’s priority, actually, is for unfettered access, and it’s one that we should all embrace. We know that—. We understand that free trade agreements are important, but we also must understand the EU-27 position as well, because very often we talk about our position, but there are negotiations.

Mark Reckless talked about the ‘mastery’ of the letter on article 50. I saw a veiled threat in that letter about security. I don’t call that ‘mastery’; I call that ‘threats and intimidation’, and that’s not good negotiation.